About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
votes against him -- >> on fox news, john mccain recalled that hagel was very rough on bush, said he was the worst president we ever had, that the surge in iraq was the worst mistake since vietnam, and that is why republicans are down on him. >> john mccain has been shifting positions this week. this thing walks like a filibuster, quacks like a filibuster. it is the filibuster. i would like to point out a couple of the facts -- secretary of defense bill cohen, republican. secretary of defense of bob gates, republican. secretary of defense melvin laird, republican national. security adviser brent scowcroft, a republican. rmer chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, colin powell, republican did all of them have endorsed chuck hagel. who lost benghazi -- next it will be lost china, who prpromoted and is from captain to major? joe mccarthy will find out about it. >> go ahead, charles. >> and have as long a list of endorsements as you want and leave your lying eyes. believe your lying eyes. it is less about ideology or any thing is about competence. there's a democratic senator quoted afte
on the hill. >> there is, it make no mistake about it. john mccain put it bluntly that his state wld be a blue state. ann coulter has already, against marco rubio, saying that all you're doing is creating more democratic voters with a path to citizenship, just like you did with easy divorce, in her judgment. >> does she have a point, colby? >> as far as rubio is concerned? >> creating more democratic votes. >>hey ll " more democratic until republicans, with policies that attract their attention. when you bring people into the system as obama's healthcare does, that his policy. you will not change that with marco rubio's face. >> were you watching when the lights went out at the super bowl? it happens in washington a lot. >> the interruptions in service did not occur inside the building. >> t sysm worked -- that is what they said after watergate. [laughter] why did the lights go off in the superdome? the power co. said it was a faulty device they installed. in any case, it brings me to the question of infrastructure. a couple of years ago, the world economic forum rated as 23rd, between chile a
republicans-- including john mccain and lindsey graham-- were coming out of a meeting with republicans saying "we're satisfied in the case of john mccain and graham, request the answers we got about benghazi from the white house. we're satisfied now. but we don't think other senators have had enough time. they're not on the arms services commit tee so we'll vote to hold this up now, when we come back in ten days we'll vote yes. it's not blocking, we just want to slow down." >> warner: what were the motivations? you had reid taking it to a vote where it was predicted he would lose and republicans said yeah we'll vote for it in another ten days but not now. what are the politics here? >> on the republican side, the politics have shifted from the center of the three amigos on national security, jindsy graham john mccain and senator kelly ayotte from new hampshire. it's shifted away from them. they had questions about benghazi which had been a major political issue since before the election. those seem to be moving off the table now. there are senators on the right who are asking questions about
, beginning with john mccain who apparently is convinced at this point in his life the most seminal event in u.s. history was not the constitutional convention, concord, lexington or-- it was the surge. and where you stood on the surge. >> woodruff: in iraq. >> in iraq that determines whether, in fact, you are a visionary or a retrograde. but i was-- it was a lousy performance by chuck hagel. he obviously decided he wasn't going get confrontational. when ted cruz, the junior senator from texas basically accused him of dishonesty, raised questions about his honor, and-- the idea that chuck hagel, that david and i know didn't say wait a minute, you know, and he did at the last question, i'm out of time now but let me ask you about this about your speeches and what you reported and didn't report. i mean at that point chuck hagel says let me tell you, you know, you've just raised a question, i don't care about time or time being out this is my time to tell you, you know, that you are absolutely wrong and-- and that was just missing completely. >> woodruff: so there is some reporting that hagel thi
a grea great-- oppose tate act. he endorsed john mccain as president. he went tohe republican convention we are criticized, the democrat eck nominee barack obama and endorsed mccain and sarah palin. and when joe campaigned in 20080 with mccain, comes back to the senate and senate democrats make him the chairman of standing committee, contrast that with chuck hagel. 84% of americans for conservative action, voting record in his canner radio, voting for the bush tax cuts, voted for the war in iraq, oted against no child left behind but was a small government conservative, and republicans right now, particularly tea party, are not looking for converts like the democrats were with joe leiberman. they're looking for heretics. and they see in chuck hagel who never endorsed barack obama, was friendly with him, traveled with him, but didn't endorse him. they see this terrible heretic. and it's really, that is where the republicans are right now. they are looking for heretics instead of converts. and i think it's apparent in the tea party. but i think it's apparent in the ranks of the entire rank
for secretary of state. she was standing about three feet away from lindsey graham and john mccain two of the people who were hardest on her for the benghazi matter. we didn't see any interchange at all. usually they studiously ignore each other. >> i did john mccain and lindsey graham hug in an almost unseemly fashion. leon panetta the out going secretary of defense. they have been two of the most critical of the nominee to be his successor, chuck hagel. it is date night too. i want to point out that. the democratic senator from colorado two years ago proposed, judy, that members instead of just democrats sitting with democrats and republicans... this year i think he's doing it with the republican senator from alaska, that peoplec with people from the other party and across the aisle. several members have done it. i think mccain and gram seem to be a couple of them. >> they share the popcorn. woodruff: that's a tradition they started a few years ago. a a number of members picked it up. it seemed to fade. >> it was done right after the gabrielle giffords. >> woodruff: she's here tonigh
before. number one, this comes from people like john mccain and others who very much oppose enhanced interrogation. >> john and i argued on many occasions. >> rose: exactly right. and he has some experience, as obviously he does. and other people, a, because of american values, even stanley mcchrystal has said this. >> i read his book. it's a good book. >> rose: all right. do you agree with his position? >> no. >> rose: and when we say "enhanced interrogation" why don't we call it what many people believe it ought to be called, torture. >> because it'snot. >> rose: what's the difference? >> the diffence is we went through a very long, difficult, and elaborate process with the justice department before we started the enhanced interrogation programs, we said "tell us where the red line is." at the agency as we were dealing with the need to find ways to get more intelligence from the people that we're capturing, the conclusion was we needed to be able to use more aggressive techniques. but nobody wanted to use techniques that put us over the line into the area of torture because of the
john mccain made clear, they haven't forgotten. >> were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect, yes or no? >> my reference to the surge being the most dangerous. >> are you going to answer the question, senator hagel? the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. i would like an answer on whether you were right or wrong, then you're free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things. >> well let the record show that you refused to answer the question. now please go ahead. >> well, if you'd like me to explain why ... >> i'd actually like an answer, yes or no? >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. i think it's far more complicated than that, as i've already said. my answer is i'll defer that judgment to history. as to the comment i made about >> i think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the wrong side of it. and your refusal to ans
panetta, and the joint chiefs chairman, general martin dempsey. arizona republican john mccain asked about a report that president obama rejected a proposal to arm syrian rebels last summer. >> did you support the recommendation by secretary of state... then secretary of state clinton and then head of c.i.a. general petraeus that we provide weapons to the resistance in syria? did you support that? >> we did. >you did support that. >> we d. >> suarez: so far, the president's judgment has been that things won't get better with american arms. instead, he's warned the weapons might fall into the hands of extremist elements, a concern reiterated today by the new secretary of state, who was asked about the deliberations last year. >> i don't know what the discussions were in the white house and i'm not going backwards. the new administration, we're going forward from this point. there are serious questions about al nusra and a.q.i.-- al qaeda in iraq-- and other violent groups on ground. >> suarez: those groups are among the most effective fighters against the assad regime. they include jabhat a
to withdraw the hagel nomination. but on sunday arizona senator john mccain said president obama's choice deserved an up or down vote. >> i do not believe that chuck hagel, who is a friend of mine, is qualified to be secretary of defense. but i do believe that elections have consequences. >> woodruff: today 18 g.o.p. senators joined with democrats to end the filibuster. hours later, the senate confirmed hagel, 58-41. mainly along party lines. for more we turn to mark thompson, "time" magazine's national security reporter. welcome back to the program. so after all the storm and the fury from republicans, enough of them voted to let this confirmation takes place. what was this all about? >> basically it was on valentine's day that the senate would not let this proceed to an up-or-down vote. instead basically the republicans were looking for something to derail the nomination so for 12 days the nation waited essentially leon panetta was running over to nato and back to his walnut farm. we really didn't have a true secretary of defense other than this lame duck. today finally the republicans
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)